Why Ryan’s American Health Care Act is not that American

Ryan’s American Health Care Act isn’t too American. From the legislative process itself, to the subsidies, regulations, and entitlements, Ryan’s plan isn’t American. The bill is no city on the hill.

The American Health Care Act bill is simply not market driven, and that’s not American either. Subsidies and more federal spending only increase health care dollars, dollars that in turn, will only further inflate the price of health insurance.  The bill is doomed to a fiery, centralized-government, un-American failure. That’s not making America great again.

Worse, so far, Ryan’s legislative process matches the soulless Marxism of the Pelosi-Reid all out assault on American health care eight years ago. Recently Pelosi, with no sense of the ironic whatsoever, boldly declared that “The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.” Despite her shameless hypocrisy, the irony highlights Ryan’s methodology. Rand Paul was outraged by the leader’s secrecy and Ryan managed to get the American Health Care Act through two committees without a single amendment being offered. Furthermore, Ryan and the GOP managed to get the AHCA through committee before the CBO numbers came out. As with the Obamacare assault on legitimate government, Ryan has also tried to give his fellow congressman no choice except to vote for the bill he’s rushing through the legislative process.  All of this seems somewhat un-American for a bill that so proudly proclaims its patriotism.

While not quite as Orwellian as Obamacare’s official name: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the GOP’s American Health Care Act has its own elements of doublespeak. Out of one side of their mouths, supporters of the Ryan plan say tax credit subsidies are only fair since the workers who receive these are not eligible for the implicit tax benefits that other workers receive from their employer based health care. From the other side of their mouths, though, supporters of the tax credits also plan to tax these very Americans for having “Cadillac” health care plans through their employers.

Based on the AHCA’s proposal to push the Cadillac Health Care Tax to 2025, I suspect that no one intends to ever implement this menace. Instead, the Cadillac tax is simply part of the current plan to reduce the staggering budget breaking costs of maintaining the Medicaid expansion, Obamacare-like regulations, and tax credit subsidies into the next decade. Indeed, the minimal savings over ten years shown by the CBO numbers only comes into play after the Cadillac tax is applied. Nevertheless, the following chart illustrates the folly of this heinous intrusion of the federal government into the work place.

Notice that, as health care costs follow an inflationary path merely equal to annual rates of all products, more and more employer based health care plans will become “Cadillac” plans.

Nevertheless, even more Orwellian than the double speak over the “fairness” of the proposed tax credits, is the claim that because employers receive a tax deduction for providing Cadillac health care plans to employees, tax credits for the self-employed does not represent a new entitlement program. Of course they do! The federal government is taking the place a big business employer for all self-employed workers. That’s as permanent a transformation of government’s role as assuring that everyone has a right to food stamps and housing.

This, of course, the transformation of the government’s role in American health care, is the fundamental reason the Ryan’s current plan will be an abysmal failure. Conservatives must reject the Marxist-like promises of health care for all and insurance that will cover those with pre-existing conditions. As Obamacare was built on lies, so too must any health care plan that does not reject a centralized government’s role in providing health care.

Yes, the left will scream and the media will camp out at every skid row in America. That’s just what it means to be a Conservative in the United States of America in the 21st century. But, if we want the best for Americans, Conservatives must trust the free market.

The Enemy Within

Since Pete Wilson and California Proposition 187, the California Democratic Party has been aggressively organizing illegal immigrants into a voting block. The goal of Proposition 187 was to make illegal aliens ineligible for public benefits. It was passed but never enforced. Instead, something was born of fury of fear and of desperation… something ugly, an enemy within.

There are now so many illegal immigrant voters in California that the left sought to legalize jury duty for non-citizens. This was for a very practical reason. There were so many non-citizens on the voting rolls that parts of California could not find sufficient jurists by the traditional method of calling on those registered to vote. An estimated 10 million Californians were summoned for jury duty in 2012 and only 4 million were eligible and available to serve.

Here’s a hint: Check your state’s jury roles for non-citizens who’ve already committed voter fraud.

Gov. Moonbeam signs California’s new Motor Voter Act (A.B.1461)

So powerful is this illegal voting block, that, for the last eight years the executive branch has been its ally, offering five MILLION illegal immigrants amnesty as “Dreamers.”

So influential is this voting block that California was the first and only state to request Obamacare for illegal immigrants.

So dominant is this La Raza funded, Democrat mob vote that illegal immigrants now hold legal drivers’ licenses in the state of California. Eight hundred thousand illegals are now licensed to drive in the State of California, but there is no voter fraud in California. Remember that.

In fact, so privileged has this entitled group of federal felons become that California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon loudly proclaimed that half his family are illegal immigrants. He boasted that they have committed document fraud on both the federal and state level. So ran Senator De Léon’s rant:

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

But there’s no voter fraud. Remember that. We know there is no voter fraud worth investigating in California because the California Democrats now have super majorities in both houses. The enemy is within. A lawless conspiracy of treasonous citizens and non-citizens are committed to defrauding law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights, the fruits of their labor, and their liberties.

Most of all we can be certain that there is no voter fraud because the leader of the United States Senate. Mitch McConnell has told us so. He swears:

There’s no evidence that it (voter fraud) occurred in such a significant number that would have changed the presidential election, and I don’t think we ought to spend any federal money investigating that…

Yes America, the enemy is within.

 

The Muslim Ban was Never about Banning Islam

The “Muslim Ban” was never about banning Islam. Instead, it is based on this:

Not all Muslim’s are radical Islamic terrorists,

 but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

The idea was to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration until a plan for extreme vetting could be developed. Once it was developed, Trump believed he could keep America secure for the free and peaceful practice of all religions.

Trump, of course, has, at the behest of GOP advisors such as Rudi Giuliani, softened his position on the Muslim Ban. Trump has opted for a ban on specific terrorist hotbeds. This he has done despite the reality that radicalization takes place even where cells are not active. As Trump’s critics have noted, Saudi Arabia radicalized three quarters  of the original 9/11 terrorists and yet Saudi Arabia is not among the banned nations.

Perhaps the most damning criticism of Trump’s immigration ban is that we have, so far, no proof, logically deductive proof or experiential proof, that the ban is effective in any way.

Experience is certainly not the teacher anyone wants in this matter. If there aren’t attacks, we won’t know if it’s because of the ban, and no one wants proof that the ban did not work.

This leaves logical proof. This proof will come down to Trump’s definition of “extreme vetting.” If it is up to the Obama sect of the American left, the vetting will be utterly useless and ineffective. This is because the media have dwarfed the American intellect. Americans seemingly can’t have an adult discussion about liberty and religious practice because they are slaves to glittering generalities about the mythical rights of sacred cows.

The real questions are will the vetting go far enough to be effective? Beyond whether or not the vetting could be easily evaded by would-be terrorists, is the goal of the vetting itself sound?

Logically, if Trump can effectively vet the desire to practice the more radical elements of Sharia, such as punishing Muslims who convert to Christianity with death, he can stave off the horrible radicalism of terrorist attacks.

Americans have not had a national conversation about where Islam oversteps the bounds of Liberty to which all Americans are bound.

Each religion deserves its own discussion. Although Islam, Conservative Christianity and Orthodox Judaism agree that homosexuality is not God’s will, it’s rare that a single discussion will apply to many religions at once. Usually, each religion needs a unique discussion. Is animal sacrifice acceptable as part of the voodoo religions of the West Indies? Is refusing medical treatment for terminally ill children acceptable because it is part of the religion of the Jehovah witnesses? Is the use of illegal hallucinogens permissible as part of the Sioux mystical rites?

In the same way we need to squarely face the religious practices of certain schools of Islam, especially as these impact the rights of others. Should we ban burqas? Do we refuse immigration to those who believe it is a religious virtue to beat their wives? What about honor killings or female genital mutilation? Should our foreign policy discourage the murder of those who want to practice religious freedom and escape Islam? All of these are important questions that adults need to discuss. We cannot achieve peaceful religious freedom for all if we don’t ask these questions.

Some believe that all Islam is an ideological poison. That’s not clear from recent history. During much of the post World War II period Islam and the West co-exited reasonably well.

Even recent history shows that the United States has the potential for significant and strong bonds of friendship with majority Muslim states. King Abdullah II of Jordan is one such example. The remarkable events surrounding Egypt’s rejection of the radical Muslim Brotherhood are further examples of the capacity of Islam to co-exist with the West.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it “reforming” Islam. We in the West need only call it “extreme vetting.” Together we need to talk about the elements of Sharia law that are elements of religious choice and the others that are part of a radical ideology inconsistent with the liberties, the natural liberties of choice and religious freedom the United States of America represents. If we can take the radical out of radical Islam we have defeated radical Islamic terrorism before it has begun.

But where are we today? We can’t honestly discuss the term “Muslim Ban.” Perhaps part of the reason is the actual meaning of the phrase requires asking other questions too subtle for intellectual children.

American Fascists are calling American Voters Fascists!

The radical left is now regularly accusing American citizens of succumbing to fascism for supporting Donald Trump. Nothing could be more polarizing. Nothing could be more incorrect. Hitler’s fascism was especially dangerous because of a “cult” of personality. Trump supporters are all about the issues.

Trump supporters, should not allow themselves to remain in the basket of deplorables based only on Trump’s name. It’s far more American to be thrown into the basket of fascist, nationalistic deplorables for clearly stating one’s positions on global trade, national boundaries, and an American first foreign policy.

Of course, calling one’s opponent “Hitler” is the utterly trite example of a propaganda ploy called demonizing the enemy. That’s why every organ of fascist American media and every brilliant American “academic” spews this about Trump followers with such moronic piety (no offense to morons).  Honestly, despite the records of Joseph Stalin, Mau Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot, there is no twentieth century figure more vilified in the Western world than Adolf Hitler. To the Western mind Hitler is the devil.

The majority of millennial snowflakes probably don’t participate knowingly in the fallacy of discussing political personalities instead of political principles. Part of being caught up in fashionable political personalities is the belief that all political discourse is about the personalities, racial identities or gender roles of those on the national scene.

It is, ironically, the American Marxist left, which, damning others, bears the closest resemblance to fascism. From pathetic sit-ins over losing a Senate vote, to ruining cities with their self-righteous riots, the American left circles this cult or that cult of personality like lunatic moths circle to their deaths in the halo of a candle’s false light.

The textbook rise of a leader’s cult of personality includes the use of mass media propaganda. After a summer of wildly incorrect polls and corruptly biased journalism, the left had the audacity to accuse American citizens of voting for Donald Trump because they had succumbed to “fake news.” Yet it is the very leaders of those who decry “fake news” who instigated, paid for, and released a bizarrely salacious example of preposterously fake news to embarrass the duly elected American President nationally and internationally. It’s now plain that the propaganda from the left is primarily for the left. The propaganda isn’t to fool the deplorable Americans who vote national issues. Sadly, it’s a rallying cry for radicals. All the left has left are those who can be led by the glitter of propaganda and lies.

So how does one get one’s neighbor out of the cult? Yes, it’s dangerous, but one has to try to speak patiently to the cultist and, in so doing, opens oneself to every kind of vicious attack by this or that seething mob of fake news conformists. One idea is to let a fake news cultist know that you don’t support Trump’s plan for the country because you like Trump, but you like Trump because he supports your plan for the country.

Nevertheless, it is one’s patriotic duty. Our nation and our national our liberties, when exercised boldly and wisely, increase in strength.

Genuine Free Trade and Multinational Hypocrisies

The United States of America is the best modern example of a free trade zone. The example of the power of free trade among the thirteen colonies exemplified, perfectly, the contrasts between mercantilism and economic liberty. This robust power of economic liberty would eventually be popularized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

41cTu15sl5L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_Adam Smith contrasted mercantilism, the practice of economic domination of other nations through the power of trade, with the prosperity that arises when nations trade honestly with one another. Nations practicing mercantilism sought to make other nations subservient by selling merchandise but refusing, by tariffs and taxes, to purchase an equal monetary amount from the nations they sought to impoverish. More importantly, nations practicing mercantilism sought to manufacture finished goods while receiving raw resources from their debtor nations.

As long as the United States traded freely within its own expanding borders, its prosperity and manufacturing became ascendant, despite the pressures of mercantilist trading partners such as Great Britain. By the end of World War II the British Empire ceased to exist as a mercantilist power, and the United States was the premier manufacturing and economic power in the world. Since the age of NAFTA under President Bill Clinton and historic GOP majorities in congress, the manufacturing base of the United States has been gutted. Why? What went wrong? Why was “free trade” so destructive to the American economy?

First of all, it was free trade in name only. It wasn’t free trade at all. Anyone who ever called our international ‘free trade’ agreements free trade were liars.

There is no such thing as unilateral free trade. If one trading partner is protectionist or practices CdO7ZpDUsAIAWPbmercantilism while the other partner does not, this isn’t free trade. It’s a give away. It’s highway robbery. It’s high treason, but it’s NOT free trade. To the extent that free trade, or just trade, is good for all partners; idiotic trade, treasonous trade, or corrupt trade eventually damages every partner. China, for example, has run up trade surpluses with the West to such an extent that the economic power of its trading partners has been slowed or diminished. As a result, China is killing the golden goose. Who will China trade with if its Western markets are diminished? The recent slowdowns in the Asian economy are a partial witness of the corrupt trade practice the East has followed with the West.

Do America’s trading partners practice mercantilism today? While some nations such as China have sought gold reserves, today’s economic gold standard is the American dollar or American treasuries. Are American trading partners hording American treasuries and dollars? Yes, everyone from Saudi Arabia to China have the good sense to maintain trade surpluses and to invest that wealth or horde that wealth. Thinking that having material things for one’s citizens is more important to foreign governments than hording American currency is utterly naïve. Having material things for one’s subjects (as in Saudi Arabia) or citizens (as in China) is of some value, but having the world’s mightiest military held hostage by its nation’s debt is priceless.

CdO7ZsZVAAEdLxoSecondly, our free trade agreements were free trade agreements in name only. The larger lesson of desolated Detroit, a lesson that was always self-evident from Adam Smith’s work anyhow, is that only free peoples can engage in free trade. While China is not a member of NAFTA, it is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). So also are Japan and South Korea, other nations with which the United States has unthinkable trade deficits. This monstrous world-wide trading organization seeks to provide the standards by way of which trade is “regulated.” Since all regulation is anathema to the idea of free trade, such an organization is as much a farce as Marxism. Since Marxism is a logical impossibility, it can never exist in practice. Likewise, the logical impossibility of the WTO means that, in practice, whatever it is, it is not an organization that sets standards for free exchange. Only a political union can provide an atmosphere of free trade, and then, only if the political union promotes and defends the liberties of its citizens. A free citizenry is what allows the invisible hand of the free market to work.

Finally, it follows from the premise that “only free peoples can engage in free trade” that free trade can only be pursued, not achieved, among different nations. A political union among free people is the only basis for the wto-litigation-ft-august-2012adjustments that take place as part of genuine free trade. Among various nations, various degrees of economic freedom and political freedom result in unequal trading relationships. These inequalities are the responsibility of each nation to monitor and evaluate. The tokens of unfair, or unequal, “free trade” can be found in trade surpluses or deficits and in the aggregate increases or decreases in the manufacturing sectors of various national economies.

None of this takes rocket science to describe and to apply. That’s why the free market works. Workers, manufacturers, merchants and producers of every kind measure their own microeconomic trade deficits and adjust. This is what allows for efficiency in every economy. Recognizing that “free trade” philosophies have been applied so poorly implies corruption. Almost everyone recognizes that transnational corporations and large banking interests are profiting from the seemingly idiotic application of free trade philosophies. While greed means wanting more than one needs, and while no one can be a judge as to what another feels he needs, greed is certainly manifest in the corruption that has become international in scope and rotten to the core.

Liberty Comes from the Rule of Law

It’s a paradox, so it is deeply true: liberty, in every incarnation from monetary freedom to personal liberty, comes from the rule of law. For a person to prosper, he or she must live by a code; the higher the code the greater the prosperity. So it is, also, for nations. Ours has become lawless, preferring human whims to the natural law of its founders.

In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 3, 2012, President Obama called a budget obamaproposal of Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Obama and others fail to recognize that there can be a rule of law higher than any one person, so they cannot distinguish the differences between liberty and the doctrines of tyrants, doctrines that excuse utter despotism and abject slavery by refusing to accept laws higher than self.

Social Darwinism was the psychotic delusion of a drunk’s puppet (no disrespect to drunks). For the leader of the free world to associate free market principles with this theology of degenerate racism is proof of the dementia at the core of modern American “intellectualism.” Our academics have become a self-lauding church that parades itself in our national discourse as our national conscience. If we had a national conscience, we’d grind these institutions into powder and scatter them across the brook Kidron.

Generally, Social Darwinism was a Victorian Age rationalization for upper class elites to take from others the fruits of their labors by any means possible. Laws that allowed for economic prosperity could be discarded at will on the basis of racial dominance. Social Darwinism became the intellectual window dressing for thuggish premises like: “We’re strong; you’re not, so we can take what’s yours.” Saying that Social Darwinism is the ethical basis for a free market is comparable to saying free trade is a robber, who, holding a gun to your head, offers you the choice: “Your money or your life!”

Free markets, historically, 71FDiOr4jzLdon’t work this way. They don’t function at all under lawless conditions. Free markets in which wealth “evolves” work on King Arthur’s round table principles. Free markets produce when “Might is for Right” and not when “Might is Right.” Ironically, it is Communism and Socialism that must get rid of the rule of law in order to function (see The Road to Serfdom). In 2012 it is the socialists who are trying to get rid of the rule of law by attacking free markets as lawless.

Human virtue, though, is demonstrably not genetic. Animals excel in their relationship to the physics of earth, air, and water. Human virtue, however, is determined by mankind’s relationship to truth. A fit nation is an ethical nation, and such nations can only exist with ethical citizens.

In this context, a change does occur in free markets. The ethics of a free people are continually expressed in the realm of material prosperity.  The best banks, railroads, airlines and businesses survive and are rewarded for their service to others. But “fittest” does not mean “strongest.” Instead, the entire nation moves from shadows towards light. The greatest societies are laudable for the ethics and strength of the laws by which they govern all their members equally. In return and they are rewarded by an economic strength that flows from teamwork and specialization.

Herbert Spencer cannot take the blame for those who applied the ideas of Social Darwinism to eugenics. However, the implicit link to racism from the days of British Imperialism to the eugenics movement in the United States, gives the ideology of Social Darwinism a hellish connotation.

Obama can get away with labeling every free market proponent a racist because this nation will not hold itself responsible to any law higher than it’s personal convenience.

Cone-headed academicians can get away with cursing the principles of a great nation endowed with liberty from beneath white masks of “intellectual purity” because the septic system of American thought has been so thoroughly corrupt for so long.

We think nothing of this utter rot pouring out from beneath the bathroom door. We’ve lived in this filth so long that we hardly notice it anymore. But we are all utterly contaminated. We reek of sickness and stink of decay. The truth of America has no real friends, and the jackals, smelling our decay, are circling.

Liberty comes fking-arthur-and-the-knights-of-the-round-table-round-table-1-ideas-round-table-1rom the rule of law. This is true for individuals, economies, societies and nations. The darkness of ignorance in every person and in every nation comes from ignoring each person and each law’s relationship to the truth. We are not a nation founded on natural law because we are nature worshippers. We were a nation dedicated to natural law because we read in nature the face of it’s Designer and His higher purposes for every person. We read in nature His eternal call to liberty. Now it seems we prefer tyranny and slavery. Liberty is not a statue. It is the purpose of the Creator for every person. Let’s be part of the change. Let’s stand up and stay valiant for the truth.

Transgenic Cows and the Odds Against the Darwin Theory

The mathematics against the origin of life arising by the interaction of normally occurring natural forces are easily understood, but the probabilities of naturally occurring mutations that result in entirely new species are not as simple to measure. However, recent news about the failure to mix human and cow DNA in transgenic cows provides a small window into the problem. The evidence shows that each species’ DNA is so awesomely complex that it is not malleable; it is not naturally mutable.

29_fransiscrickWhile one of the co-discoverers of DNA, Francis Crick, believed the odds were so stacked against life originating by the operation of natural forces that alien intervention would be at least as reasonable to assume, the complexity of  variables in DNA and epigenetics makes similar computations for the relationship between species extraordinarily complex. Nevertheless, the failure of top scientific intellects to design a blend of the DNA between two species, human and bovine, show how intensely the odds are stacked against evolutionary theory.

Recently, GE Free New Zealand released a report covering 15 years of AgResearch trials using 60 cows bred to express certain transgenic proteins, including a human protein, in their milk. The report is based on information obtained from New Zealand’s form of the United States FOIA request called an Official Information Act request or OIA. After fifteen years of experimentation, from the many thousands of transgenic embryos the cows have carried, the average live birth rate has ranged from 0 – 7%.

Starting with Crick, modern genetic engineering itself represents a developing communal intelligence of over fifty years. This communal intelligence has made many genetic breakthroughs. For instance, the New Zealand genetic engineers have achieved solid success in developing species specific bovine traits that benefit the beef industry. However, when endeavoring to handle transgenic bovine-human DNA, genetic engineers have experienced nothing but failure.

Consider the significance of this for the Darwin theory. The intelligence these labs represent intervenes into the treenatural environment and accomplishes in hours what Darwin speculated might happen over the course of thousands and thousands of years. That is, these scientists introduce a new, genetically diverse bovine DNA code into the “evolutionary cycle.” They introduce something like a transitional species such as is needed in the phylogenetic trees essential to the Darwin theory’s explanation of the fossil record.

This millennial “time lapse” occurs each time a scientist generates a single embryo. These New Zealand scientists generated thousands of embryos with diverse DNA. In addition, these scientists endeavored to generate compatible strands of DNA. They were not randomly mutating genes. These scientists had a specific “evolutionary” goal in mind and extensive experience in genetic mapping. Furthermore, the genetic goal was not even an “intermediate” species or hybrid between cow and human. The goal was a slight expansion or alteration of bovine specific DNA beyond a cow’s natural species specific genetics.

The experiments were utter disasters. AgResearch’s annual reports cataloged “a sad and profoundly disturbing cowstory of illness, reproductive failure and birth deformities.” Even worse for the Darwin theory, most of the transgenic cows were not able to reproduce past the first generation. Sterility resulting from genetic transformations, no matter how profitable the new adaptation might be for the survival of the species (and none were at all profitable for adaptation), is death to evolution. Even more ruinous for Darwinism is that the transgenic cows which did produce a second generation all bore sterile offspring.

In Darwinian evolutionary terminology, thousands upon thousands of years finally produced a single alternate form of Bovine DNA, but the embryo couldn’t survive until birth. Multiply this failure by thousands of thousands of years of failures until a single embryo survives. Then that embryo is sterile. Then repeat the millennium again and again until, at last, an embryo survives that can breed… but… but… its offspring… all sterile, as sterile as the Darwin theory.

Perhaps some day, heaven forbid, mankind will be able to generate mutant species, monsters that can survive and breed. It won’t be by chance. It will only be by intelligent design.

If twisting a species’ DNA requires intelligent design. How much more intelligence must it take to originate a species. How much more intelligence must it take to engineer all of the teeming multitude of living things that swim, fly and walk the earth, surviving and interacting in ways more intricate than the human mind can fully comprehend, let alone express. Now think about the Planner Who is the only possible explanation for the Universe. That’s not church. That’s logic.

 

End the Iran Agreement by Killing the Virtual Filibuster

With the Iranian Nuclear “treaty-not treaty- agreement” on the table, the voice of the American people as expressed kerry bowsin their legislative houses will be utterly muted. Why? Because an antiquated tool of the D.C. establishment has, again, slit the throat of the people’s voice. The Democrats will filibuster, and not in the old style manner of Cruz or Paul, but in the anonymous, effortless, no-commitment style of the 1960’s push-button filibuster, a style of filibuster actually enacted under an LBJ Democratically controlled congress in 1975. To pass the legislation that censors the Iranian nuclear agreement, conservatives and constitutionalists should kill the virtual filibuster and bid it good riddance forever.

The hour of action on killing this irresponsible filibuster has long passed. Because the push-button filibuster hides senate votes, it has allowed cowards to control our foreign policy and elite insiders to control our budgets. Today, not only will the cowards seek to appease Iran instead of stand, the cowards in the Senate will avoid a vote entirely, keeping their base acts from seeing the light of day.

The elitist Senate, since the August recess, has surprised the nation by displaying a noblesse oblige, hinting that they were, perhaps, inclined to independent thought after all. There was such a dramatic change from the usual snore and pull-for-party attitude that all America wondered. For a second, everyone actually thought that Senators were going to deliberate, a phenomenon not seen since befo1153re Watergate. For a glorious moment it appeared that the eloquent and noble minded Senate was planning to put what each senator deduced to be the best for the nation ahead of his or her own political faction. Yea, right…

This week, a per usual, as liberals returned to the city of their corruption, far from their families, their natural interests, and their constituencies, they reverted to kind. Marching in lock-step they now plan quash the vote of the Senate and House majority. They will simply silence it, for a vote condemning the oil-rich, Russian-led, Iran appeasement bill simply cannot be condoned. The liberal Senate silence us via the safe, censorship-proof tool of the “virtual” filibuster.

Since the Civil War, factional battle lines have never been so hardened. Into this climate of faction, enter mullahthe overreaching executive, the tyrannical courts, and a filibuster that effectively shuts the mouths of the American people. There is nothing good about any of this and, essentially, because of the 1975 cloture rules, the congress has become a dead letter institution allowing the other branches to become overgrown and hideous. End the “virtual” filibuster now.

As much as one wanted to suspend disbelief and be surprised that, after all their grandstanding, liberals went forward in lock-step unity, it is even harder to be surprised that the do-nothing GOP establishment chain of fools did not procure a simple up or down vote when this entire matter came up last spring. The GOP leadership, in fact every member of both houses, knew this would happen. They knew no vote on the most blatantly weak foreign policy ever initiated by an United States president would not even receivea Senate vote. Yes, they knew it. Yet they marched harmoniously together in a show of bi-partisanship. Why? Only those privy to cloak room agreements know for sure, but it is certain that, even if the GOP leadership really had a wit of sense, no deal with a straight up or down vote would have made it through the current Senate cloture process.

One senator, a Senator Murphy of Connecticut, claims that a veto fight would embarrass the country. This is proof that the cloture procedure has become a cloak of cowardice, censorship, and tyranny, for Palin-Rallies-Tea-Partiers-AP-Photo-640x480while a veto fight takes fewer votes than a cloture fight the liberals want no part of it. The liberals have no desire that the voice of the people is heard by their directly elected representatives.

A veto fight is the constitutional way the executive and legislative branches are to engage. The founders never envisioned the current fights over cloture as part of the legislative process. The modernized, no-commitment, liberal cloture, the push-button filibuster, is the way of the shiftless, corrupt, and irresponsible. The vermin are hiding in its darkness. Before whom does Senator Murphy fear embarrassment? Would he be embarrassed before Russia? How about Iran? Maybe he’s afraid of the mocking words of the Chinese? Are Murphy and the President afraid to defend the constitutional processes of a free people before the dictators and tyrants of this world? The push button filibuster is the way of cowards. It is time to end it once and for all and ending it to yell at the top of our lungs about the evil before us in Iran would be a lasting and profound historical statement.

The Eclipse of the American Idea

The legacy of the Declaration of Independence is well over two hundred years old, but the American idea has never been in greater danger.

First, the idea that the individual has been endowed by his Creator with the sovereign right to a government that works for him has been eroded by a hundred years of creeping socialism, but recently matters have become much worse. The most enduring legacy of our Constitution, a liberty that has stood unscathed, suddenly lies in smoking ruin. America’s religious liberties are gone. Their light has been eclipsed.

In deciding to make homosexual marriage the law of the land, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, made homosexuality a protected civil rights class like race, religion, and gender. They have done so without a constitutional amendment or any attempt to solicit the will of the people. That they could do this shows how far gone our Constitutional liberties already were, but the court has made matters much worse.

The proof that the Supreme Court of the United States has unlawfully rewritten the United States Constitution is that our religious liberties are no more. The self-evident proof that our religious liberties are gone is in the desperate and pathetic attempts of some conservatives to produce bills downloadprotecting what has now been ripped, in practice, from the U.S. Constitution.

Our laws protecting religious liberty from government, a model that has spread world wide, have been twisted into a weapon to affect the very persecutions they were once written to end. For instance, as a Christian, I may not agree with other Christian florists and bakers who refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding. Indeed, I might make points about Christian charity and its power to change lives. Nevertheless, my brothers and sisters are under no legal obligation to agree with me. That’s the American way. That’s freedom of religion and of speech.

When the courts add homosexuality as a protected class, the American tradition of no government involvement in religion is utterly undermined. In practical effect, a church that espouses Christian charity for bakers, tailors, photographers, and florists is favored by government while Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish religions that begin to perform marriages for same sex couples would be even more highly favored. Ultimately, churches that refuse to self-edit their Bibles concerning homosexuality will come in conflict with the force of anti-discrimination laws once written to protect their liberties. Whether they use this authority or not, our government has now been granted the ability to establish a religion or to persecute a religion over its views on homosexuality. Oh, by the way, you can bet they’ll use it.

constantine swordThe sword Constantine the Great drew in the house of God, Thomas Jefferson sheathed in our founding documents. Constantine did not mark the birth of Christianity, but he marked the birth of Christendom in the West. From that day until our founders took their stand, by special endowment or by the use of military force, European governments sponsored teachings and leaders in Christian organizations. More blood ran from Constantine’s sword over the course of European history than from the Black Plague. Once the New World was discovered, courageous people couldn’t get away from Europe fast enough. The Supreme Court has drawn the sword of Constantine again. America’s Copernican shift in the view of the relationship between good people and their government has been shrouded in medievalism.

A Tyranny of Judicial Madness Continues in Oklahoma

Recently, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled that a statue of the Ten Commandments on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds was contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution because, the court held, the Ten Commandments jack-nicholson-the-shiningbenefited a religion. Which religion it was that benefited from the monument is apparently a somewhat abstract concept to the Oklahoma court. Nevertheless, even though the monument doesn’t benefit any certain religion, it must be damned because it is part of Jewish and Christian faiths. Logic is blind to its assumptions. In Oklahoma insane assumptions about religion have led to a judicial tyranny that history will characterize as madness.

Simply, a faith is not necessarily a religion. One may have a faith in a Just and Orderly Creator and seek Him by way of a variety of religions. One may even believe in the Christian Messiah and seek him in by way of variety of Christian denominations. Indeed, this last scenario was the one that the founding fathers were most concerned about. The great variety of Christian faiths that arose after the Protestant Reformation were welcomed without governmental judgment in the New World. Jefferson sheathed the sword first wielded among Christians by Constantine the Great.

A lie believed is a tyranny of the soul. A lie enforced by a government is grounds for its abolition. Legislators in Oklahoma are calling for the impeachment of all seven justices who can’t see beyond their highly elevated noses. That’s not enough. The Oklahoma legislators are also calling for judicial reformation, a reformation that bars the state bar from monopolizing judicial appointments. That might go far enough, but it’s still an open question. Attorney General Scott Pruitt spent far too much time emphasizing that the monument was historical in nature.

Arguing that the Ten Commandments are of historic importance to our legal system, a systemTen-Commandments-statue-JPG that has now ‘evolved,’ is simply inadequate to reformation. Tell the truth: the monuments to the Ten Commandments are a symbol of our common faith that a Just God rules; that from Him all justice proceeds and before Him all our human justice will be judged. This is not a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Classical Reform Judaism is a religion.

For a century, Americans and their justices have been fed on the fat of the lie that governments can exist without a soul and, like the dust beneath our feet, continue objectively on. It’s just not true. If our government loses its soul, its humanity, we, as a nation, lose ours. Every key idea from how the value of humanity contrasts with the animal kingdom, to the meaning of nature’s voice in the relationship between the genders in marriage requires a primary axiom for logical conclusions to foster laws. All of these matters require and depend on a faith that a just Creator, the God of Nature, is out there somewhere. This is not a religion. When it concerns matters of jurisprudence, it’s a philosophy. The founders called their version of this philosophy Deism.

The Deism of some of the founders was an Enlightenment view of the Divine Right of the individual and of the Creator’s limits on the rights of collective society, of government. When this faith or belief that a Just Creator is ‘out there somewhere’ changes into a belief about how people should seek Him, the faith can be named religious. Otherwise, a faith that a Just Creator reigns is the philosophic foundation for the panoply of all religions. (When Deism moves from its rational, philosophic, intelligent design ideas to worship of some sort, it, too, can be called religious; however, it is generally too disorganized to make it as a formal religion.)

For instance, apparently, the highly intelligent and well-educated Oklahoma justices ignored the claim Islam makes on the Ten Commandments. The claim is somewhat tenuous and is perhaps made by some for less than forthright TJFlag-ForceCannotDisjoinreasons, but, because of the claim on the commandments made by others in Islam, it can be fairly argued that also among Muslims, the role of the Creator as a lawgiver, One Who governs in the affairs of all people, is understood.

Apparently, a satanic church, in the firm belief that equality of outcomes is the same thing as justice, petitioned to have an idol placed along side the monument to the Ten Commandments. That idol is a summons to worship while the Ten Commandments forbid anyone from worshiping any stone monument. Hence, as a summons to worship, it does profit a religious viewpoint. Most importantly, a free people dedicated to laws and justice has no need to give equal time to a self-proclaimed god of lawlessness and evil.

Likewise, a Hindu group also wanted to place a symbol of its worship on the capitol’s grounds. If that symbol is not a call to worship, and if it is a symbol of the belief that a Creator somewhere rules and gives laws to people, put it to a vote. The Ten Commandments are genuinely elegant in appearance, eloquent in letter, and inspiring in content. Those are plenty of reasons for the electorate to favor one monument and not another. In any case, put it to the public, not to un-elected, poorly educated, elitist, shriveled heads with gavels for brains.

To make a long story short: A Hindu, a satanist, and an American walked before the bar. None got justice, but they all heard the insane laughter of evil men howling as they butchered a free nation.